[lit-ideas] Re: Is torture wrong by definition?



Paul Stone wrote:

At 04:07 PM 4/7/2006, you wrote:

SC: we must still act honorably and therefore NOT ignore due process.


Paul: Of course when the government begin to make idiotic 'amendments' to the constitution like "marriage is between a man and a woman" how much are those same boundaries going to tighten? What if Bush wanted to make (he probably does) an amendment that says "we can torture people if necessary"? Then would it be okay according to Mr. Jackson?

**Obviously, my guess (and undoubtedly yours as well) is that Justice Jackson would never agree. Yes, as the Nazis passed laws that "permitted" them to be immoral, dishonest, and dishonorable in their treatment of peoples they disliked. You may wish to read Abby Mann's play (or view the movie) "Judgment at Nuremberg." Toward the end, the top US justice visits the former chief justice of the Nazi supreme court, behind bars, to try and understand, to ascertain what would allow such a learned, respected, (and well-published) jurist to act so ignobly. His unfortunate and weak response referred to upholding the "law".


**The US has suffered through awful presidents and woeful supreme court decisions before. However, that never excuses nor validates unethical and immoral acts: torture and abrogation of due process... Else...??

**We return to Philosophy 101: do the ends EVER justify the means?? [It should be clear, that in my mind, no, never, ever...]

TC,

/Steve Cameron, NJ


Paul

##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html




------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: